As voters, Why are we excepting either Romney or Obama as presidential candidate

As voters, Why are we excepting either Romney or Obama as presidential candidates for 2012.

The argument over leadership and leadership abilities, lost job, jobs sent overseas, economic policy, foreign policy, national and foreign debt, national banking and international banking issues, has raged... In listening to the candidates speaking, attacking, pointing fingers, I wonder why we accept either for the office of presidency? Consider:1) How would you send a message to both parties? 2) What would you say... answers can be like open letters.3) What characteristics are you looking for in a President?4) Why do you dislike either candidate or both?So have at it. rant, rave, debate

I would like to point out that Gary Johnson will be on the ballots in all fifty states. Every voter should become acquainted with all choices available. Gary Johnson's message, IMO, is exactly what this nation needs at this time in history!

Reality Bytes: Great point that there are really more than two candidates... why not take this op to tell us MORE about Gary Johnson, how to vote for him.... and whatever else pops into your head....within reason of course.

Stien wants to break up the big banks, increase funding for small, local banks, limit the role of Wall Street and corporations in government, and advance policies that protect the environment. She wants to take the money out of politics.

As voters we are making a statement and exercising a right guaranteed under the constitution. If we give up these rights, we give over the same to those who may try to totally dominate our every move and thought. We should vote, even for the act itself.

Green party candidates Jill Stein and Cheri Honkala went to jail earlier this month for protesting Fannie Mae's foreclosure proceedings against two Philadelphia citizens. That to me is something that I can vote for and seems like the kind of thing that most ordinary people could at least relate to and have respect for, if they ever actually heard the story.

Cheri Honkala had a brother commit suicide for mental health issues and the inability to get him necessary care. For a time she and her son were homeless. Is this a reason alone to vote for them? No, of course not, but at least it is a familiar story and it's a heck of a lot more interesting than watching Mitt ride around on his horse sipping champagne. People should at least give these candidates a few minutes of time.

It is simply amazing to watch and listen to people who are so completely dissatisfied with politics continue to listen to and watch the exact same politicians and news programs over and over again. Turn off your damn TV! We literally have access these days to thousands of different streams of information. It isn't hard to find information on the Green party or Libertarians. I have Jill Stein on my twitter feed and she puts out about 10 posts a day.

Gary Johnson is also a very interesting candidate. Issues-wise he is very similar to Ron Paul, but to be honest, I think, is actually much more sensible than Paul. So, why hasn't the Ron Paul/Libertarian crowd paid more attention to him? Who knows. Heck, I think he would even make a lot more sense to Tea Party folks than Romney does. I am only somewhat Libertarian on a few issues, so he wouldn't be my first choice, but I'd still vote for him over Obama or Romney.

My reason for voting in 2012 is simple; keep the Democrats in the White House. I don't really care who controls Congress, but if Republicans control Congress, Obama acts as a check on them, and they act as a check on Obama. That is why we have a two party system. Our government is only really designed for two parties.

Having said that, I also think Obama's policies, had they been allowed to work, would have helped the economic recovery along better. The Republicans put "jobs bills" on the table that were only ever symbolic, and had no chance of passing. Obama has displayed leadership, but no one can lead when half of Congress refuses to go along with anything you want to get done.

Obama has done a lot more for this country than you might think. His stimulus (yes, I dare use the dreaded word) put between 1.3 and 3 million people back to work. That very stimulus saved the country from the Great Depression, round two. Obama has also proven that he can make a very risky, tough decision; imagine how he would be doing now if the raid that got Bin Laden had gone wrong?

Mitt was Governor of Massachusetts for one term. He has never gotten elected to anything else, and he is not Washington savvy, although Ryan is. Speaking of Ryan, his plan adds billions to the debt and fails to balance the budget until 2030. Romney has the same exact health care plan that Obama gave us, minus the individual mandate. If you think Romney would get rid of "ObamneyCare" if elected, than you are sadly mistaken.

Obama has a record I can look at, and I trust him far more than I trust Romney. Remember, Obama got where he is today through his own sheer hard work and determination. He was born in a single parent household, and was sometimes raised by his grandparents. Romney was born in the lap of luxury, to a father who would be a Governor and who would run for the Presidential Nomination. Romney got where he is today through birth and good luck.

No doubt both are smart, capable men. But Obama at least knows what it is like to live paycheck to paycheck, having lived that way, once upon a time.

It is the constant battle that has held back progress... if that battle is a tool, then control of the congress is essential for movement to go forward. Part of the problem I see in fixing the economy is the speed in which the government moves.

Obama's plans did work, as far as they have gone. He saved the auto-industry, in case you hadn't noticed. I didn't see any Republicans on his side then, and they have just stood in the way ever sense. The Republicans don't have a stellar record.

GM bailout was a farce. Tax payers are still on the hook, to the tune of over $42 Billion. A legal backruptcy would have allowed for either a restructuring or selling off. Ford & other would have picked up for the demand. Shell game is what it wa

I find the whole auto bail-out interesting... we scream american made products...but those products are not really made in the USA... we can look at FLint MI to see that...Yes there are US workers but there should have been a lot more US workers.

Dealerships were closed. We still have a million less people working than when Obama took office. It bailed out the AUW and put Americans on the hook for $42 B. Bailouts failed. We are worse than 4 years ago.

Actually, I think its interesting that the stimulus was signed by George W. Bush. Typical Republicans. Blaming Obama for something that Bush did. Indeed, the individual pieces and parts were not American made, but the automobiles were.

assembled in America by foreign parts is not American made in my book. When I buy a Ford and it says Made in Mexico, Made in Canada... I want to send it back to the factory for something made in America...

When people say Obama has no record to run on, I wonder where they have been the last four years? I'm not voting for any more governors either, and I'm not willing to hand the government back to a party that has been only obstructionist.

Nathan, I was against both bailouts; those under Bush and under Obama, as there was more than one. The government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to do what was don't and to boot...it failed. $42 billion still on the tax payer.

I have to disagree. I think Congress is the big problem facing our country right now. They are too partisan, too selfish and do not work hard enough at solving problems. The rules are ridiculous and need a complete overhaul.

The time to speak loudest on this point would have been during the primary races. The people, by and large, did just that. Now it comes down to which of those, that are on the ballot, will be best (or less bad) for the country. Vote for who will most conform to the Constitution and it's guidelines for the federel government and vote for State and local officials that will do the same. Don't look at campaign slogans, but instead at actual records. And then, hold them all accountable with their collective feet to the fire every day AFTER the election and not just right before the next election. Due dilligence is needed year round and year after year.

Hello Mitch Alan! I guess I don't want to vote for which ever is the least horrid... I would rather vote for someone I believe can make a difference and I do not see that in either candidate. I don't see much power in the pres. I see it in congress.

That’s because Romney and Obama are the two main candidates for the position at this time and they no doubt will be on their respective party’s ballot. However, a strong third challenger --- Ron Paul --- could be a write in vote and possibly “win” the coming election.

WOW! Just imagine what could happen if people studied the agendas of Romney, Obama and Ron Paul. Then, for example, used the write in vote to elect Ron Paul. What a surprise victory that would be!

Do you mean "accepting" or "expecting"? The only way to not accept Obama or Romney is to not vote and that's just plain stupid. I think I've probably answered your question in a recent hub. See what you think.

Ron Paul or a green party candidate are the only other choice but until there is more widespread support for them, a vote for them is risky. I've made the mistake of voting green before only to have the election won by the least qualified candidate because of the votes missed by those of us who voted green. I wish it wasn't this way but until those other candidates have the same financial backing, it's a wash. The infuriating part for me is the dollars spent on campaigns that could be spent to create jobs. Check the links in my hub for details. Notice the difference between what Romney has spent and what Obama has spent. Think it won't be the same way in Washington if Romney gets elected. Think about it.

Sorry... I mean accepting... not excepting.. though I prefer the later in scrabble... I think there are options available before the election that is where the key to accepting comes into play... both assume we will just vote come Novemeber.

Ron Paul not running until 2016. Jill Stein M.D. is the Green Party. Gary Johnson is the Libertarian Party nomination. He is a Ron Paul revolutionary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrU6hTWyj6sJohnson was governor of New Mexico for 8 years!

You can vote for one of the other candidates, that is your right. However, you need to consider how it will impact the race. If you accept the idea that someone from one of the major parties is going to win because they get the contributions, the media coverage, etc. then what does a vote for another candidate do.

When Bill Clinton defeated George H.W. Bush, there was a third candidate, who attracted a lot of votes. He took the conservative vote away from Bush. If you add the popular votes received by Bush and Perot, they exceed what Clinton got. I have not analyzed the vote to determine the impact on the Electoral College delegates. Clinton possibly still could have won. Also, the Perot-Bush battle confused many conservative voters and they stayed home and did not vote.

That's the argument we hear every four years, the one that keeps us in thrall to the two-party system. It's always that we have to take one or the other, that we have to accept the dismal choice of the lesser of two evils. We should rebel against it.

Some of what I wanted to fuel here was that there is still time for the voters to say NO... we are not taking another loser to the white house. Personnally I do not see either candidate as leadership material... able to fix the current mess. I say NO

I want to rebel against the two-party system, but the closest thing I've ever seen to an effective rebellion is the Tea Party, which I really hoped would become an independent party. Got any specific suggestions?

I think a lot about Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party) would appeal to Tea Party types. Jill Stein (Green Party) maybe not so much, but both are interesting candidates who will be on the ballot in most states.

I think the election could be delayed... six month or 1 more year of OB would be better then 4 more years of wichever one of them... not doing anything more than has been done. This is going to take someone who can deal with all of Washington...

did you mean Accepting or Excepting?If you mean Accepting, then my answer would be it is too late at this stage of the election do to anything except vote for the lesser of two evils.

To make a change in elections so that better candidates exist, we would have to stop voting Row A or Row B and vote out incumbents that failed, and send the message to those new candidates that we elect, that they will not be reelected if they fail.

Lol@ myself... yes... I meant accepting... damn my brain. I say it is never too late...I think we should stop voting row A and row B... and really start to think about what we want in terms of representation.

Because there are only two viable choices. No 3rd party has ever been successful at electing a President and a sufficient number of legislators to make that President relevant . The last "new" political party to successfully enter the fray was the Republican Party and it was the resurrected, reformed and renamed Whiggs.

There are only two competing philosophies in American politics. One wishes to make the Federal Government the primary authority, the other wishes to keep that power reserved for the citizens and the states. There have been refrom movements in each party that have, ostensibly, sought to facilitate one or the other. It is this simple division, which dates from the founding, that drives politics in America. Where is there room for a real 3rd party that doesn't dilute the vote without replacing one of the other two paries?

It would be more effective to start a reform movement at the grass roots and change locla and state politics within a party first rather than start a new party.

Just because it has never happened is not a reason to think it can not happen... dilution of the voting populations would reduce the power the each camp have over the citizens and force comprimise in exchange for support.

I, fear, and accept that no single man can resolve them................and most certainly not to the liking of every US citizen.

The " person" that I would perfer......................................would say.........

No work..............no pay.............. ( vets, seniors and disabled, aside)........we, ARE a humane nation......

Education..............yes

discipline in the classroom...............A MUST...........no respect, no free ride

Let the little man or woman build a business from the ground floor upward...........no immediate taxes, license fees, registration..............let his or her LOCAL gpv't address this..............it should not cost 300 billion to start up a 300 thousand dollar business! Release the regs.........

STOP thinking that because, I believe " pro" this, then I must be " anti" that.

LET the people speak................STOP voting on a passing legistation on our behalf! ASK us.......on the issues that coming up on the congressional vote............

JUST STOP twisting my views, sentiments or words.........so that YOU can tell me what I think.....................

Stop talking, long enough to hear my voice, my concerns and my views............It IS, afterall what You are PAID to do.

chosen in primary elections that, again offer only limited choices. Do you feel that either of these candidates will make a difference following their election? The premise behind the original question is why do we allow the best poor choice?

I am promoting both Dr Jill Stein (M.D. just like Dr Paul) of the Green Party and Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party. Johnson is part of the Ron Paul revolution. Jill is creating her own revolution. Both want to bring all the troops home just like Ron Paul wanted to. Both want to severely cut government spending. Both want to legalize marijuana.

Johnson wants to abolish the IRS. Find out which candidate that you agree the most with taking the quiz: http://www.isidewith.com/

Related Discussions

The man is truly embarrassing,he is incapable of answering a single question on any topic because of the fear of the extreme right which makes him give nonsensical answers and look like a mumbling fool when asked even the simplest of questions.

What would it take to elect Gary Johnson as president?We may never agree on the small things, but who wants war, tyranny and economic strife? The Demopublicans and Republicrats both want more war, tyranny and government spending. With $16+Trillion in debt, we can't afford more of the same. With the...

Both Romney and Obama want more war. Looks like we're staying in Afghanistan for many more years to come. And Iraq? Heck, "combat" troops have been renamed "trainers." All for a good Corporate buck. Halliburton charged $2.5 million for a $3,000 fuel transport job! Their...

Do you research candidates before voting? How could anyone vote for Romney or Obama?I wrote articles about a local Modesto mayoral election in 2012. Though I was on the first Google results page for the biggest search phrases on Google (and there weren't too many!), only a few dozen read the...

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)

Google AdSense Host API

This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)

This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)

Facebook Login

You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)

Maven

This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.

Conversion Tracking Pixels

We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics

Author Google Analytics

This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)

Comscore

ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)

Amazon Tracking Pixel

Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)